Change Your Image
thesar30-1-977531
Reviews
Dead Awake (2016)
Another Nightmare on Elm Street Remake
Yes, I heard an interview with the writer and his favorite horror movie growing up was A Nightmare on Elm Street, but damn, this wasn't an homage, it was flat-out theft and barely, BARELY, beat the other 2010 remake in quality. Literally, this was pointless with a laughable Ring-type villain and too many plot-holes to cover here. SKIP IT.
Due Date (2010)
Thelma & Louise 2: The Revenge of Manbearpig
I don't have $100 million dollars. Much less, a mere million (YET – Lotto's on tonight) but what a disappointment Due Date turned out to be at barely breaking $100 million. I'm guessing marketing – labeling it as the next Hangover probably didn't help since they were polar opposites.
This movie was hilarious! Well, okay, let me preface with you kinda have to be a Robert Downey Jr. fan. Like me. Oh, and you should be familiar with and find Zach Galifianakis funny. Agreed. Also, be aware, it's completely preposterous and is unlike most road trips whereas the lead character, Peter (Downey Jr.) is a real-almost-90%-unlovable-ass. Yeah, I can dig that.
So, if you fit into those categories above and understand what you're getting yourself into, just leave your brain at the door and enjoy yourself here. And to clarify, he's not just unlovable, he really is just
plain
mean.
Businessman Peter's first of a series of unfortunate events with Ethan (Galifianakis) is outside an airport and is continued onto their "coincidental" flight together. Both get booted off and 86'd from the friendly skies. Having to get across country quick, OK, well, within a few days, now wallet-less Peter reluctantly agrees to join Ethan on a road-trip-from-hell to get home for the birth of his first child.
Whew
that didn't take long to give the basic synopsis, and shoot, it sounds clichéd as hell. In reality, that's not too far off a statement, especially when you roll in the inevitable "zany secondary characters" or predictable escapades the find themselves into or the foreseen "twists." If not for the great lines, mainly from Downey Jr. sparing a lot more for Galifianakis, the movie would be a complete dud. Seriously, it was their magic/chemistry that held the loose glue together.
And to enjoy them, you'll have to suspend a great deal of disbelief, such as being allowed on a plane with a marijuana pipe because security believes that famous "Oh, that's not mine" line or a government vehicle stolen and yet no one seems to want to put a simple little APB out on it or someone is shot and the hospital asks no questions. Of course not.
So, just know what you're getting yourself into, and enjoy these two great comics. It's not for everybody, but I happen to like both leads a lot and went along for the fun ride.
Hulk (2003)
Puny Humans, Indeed
I grew up on the Hulk. Let me start over – I grew up on TV's (Bill Bixby's) The Incredible Hulk. Oh, that and Wonder Woman (on TV that is – Superman was my movie hero) were it for me. Glued were my eyes whenever those two superheroes were on the small screen.
That said, I had an open mind about the first (of two. Three?) Hulk outing on the big screen knowing that they'd probably revert back to the true legend of the Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde comic book character. Personally, I wanted the big-screen version of the TV show where no one knew who David (not Bruce) was and he was always on the run. But that wasn't in the cards.
After watching Ang Lee's 2003's art-house take I had mixed feelings. I knew I wanted to like it more since it was one of my childhood favorites. I even watched it multiple more times in theatres and at home, because that's all I had for a "new" Hulk vs. all the TV reruns. I'm guessing people might have done the same when Star Trek: The Motion Picture was it for trekkers before The Wrath of Kahn came to pass.
To this day, eight years after release plus one reboot, I'm still divided. Much like Jar Jar, I hated the father story then, and still do. There's other problems with the movie, but the number one is the complete father story. Eliminate that and it would've been oodles better. Notice: not replace, for it was far too long anyways.
Adding in more Hulk burst-outs, heck – have at least one during the first 40 or so minutes and stop that annoying split screen/comic book look could have also aided in the movie's recovery. But these are here nor there, what's done was done.
The positives were the casting – Eric Bana was great as Bruce Banner, Jennifer Connelly wonderful as Betty Ross and most of all, Sam Elliott was excellent as her father, General Ross. Also, despite the all-but neon green hulk, he did look real on the screen, for the most part. In addition, whenever he attempted lifting or smashing, it looked pretty real to what in my mind would happen. Case in point: when he tries to first lift/break the "gamma" emitting sphere and he hadn't counted on it being too heavy. And, with the tanks – with/without his strength, he would have some problems pulling them apart. These are just two examples of what they got right.
Ang Lee admitted prior that he was not a fan and further, never picked up a Hulk comic book. He just wanted to make it from his mind. Sad. I'm not going to produce and star in a Shakespeare play without ever reading it. That's ignorance.
And his showed. He tried far too many artsy ideas that normally work in his movies, but not in a COMIC BOOK MOVIE. He got so caught up with making it swank he forgot his (MINE) fan base. Unless it's a comedy, I don't want to see Pride & Prejudice & Predators.
In one of the best scenes, the Hulk is tearing up an underground government lair and at the most inopportune time, Lee reduces visibility with his multiple comic book panels. I was p*ssed and didn't want to pay any attention to what Lee wanted me to see on the screen other than the one that showed the Hulk smashing and prancing about. Lee also went further by switching back and forth between the styles: real time and his cartoonish freeze-frames and "Batman POW!" shots. It was as if he, himself, had little faith in what he was doing.
It's not a basic plot – another problem for a COMIC BOOK MOVIE – but here's the quick synopsis: Daddy Banner (I refuse to call him what they named him, let's just say he was played horribly by Nick Nolte) was involved in mysterious experiments and after injecting himself against orders by General Ross, he inadvertently fathers a child who, of course, grows up and out as Bruce Banner.
Daddy's locked away, while now-grown Bruce does similar experiments and blunders which triggers a jolly green "angry man" (their name for it, bleahh.) Everyone knows it's Bruce and everyone wants a piece of the green to make, well, more green.
From there, it gets pretty over-complicated – again mainly from the Daddy-Issues. Suffice to say, Hulk will make just a few more appearances, some a little too big and even making it into San Francisco.
Let me stop there. Much like The Lost World: Jurassic Park, how disappointing was it when you have a real-looking giant (sorry, Godzilla) enter a city for just a few minutes? But, even with the few precious moments we had him in a city setting, the movie absolutely should've ended right there because
In one of the worst endings in comic book movie history (or just about any film) come following. I do spill out spoilers in my reviews, but I won't ruin the ending for anybody curious. Suffice to say, one word: RIDICULOUS.
Thank God, they did give Hulk another shot five years later – though not much better, but it was a bastard Hulk, thankfully. That's another story. As for 2003's Hulk, eh, give it as least one viewing. As bad as some of the film was, it could've been a lot worse.
Sanctum (2011)
The Abyss Part II: Bottom's Up
"This film is inspired by a true story" doesn't work on me. I'm certain there's a group of movie-goers who yearn for it, live by it and demand it, but when those words appear in the opening bit of a supposedly "factual account" I cringe. Squirm, even.
For I've seen far too many "from a/inspired by/based on" true stories, namely the always faithful underdog football team and/or player that has
absolutely
no
chance
at
whoa!
they/he
won! I mean, come on. Every single time it pans out the same way with the same drama in between? The same overbearing father, the singled out but lovable heavy kid, the book-wormed girl who will end up with, yep, you guessed it.
RARELY will these types of movies surprise me – heck, doesn't the team ever lose in the finale, but still learn the lesson? – and the latest entry, though off the field and under it, Sanctum held very few surprises.
Sure, it was suspenseful at time, I'll admit. The scenery was gorgeous, including the underwater fare. But besides those qualities and the promising opening, the movie headed fast and furious downward, deep into the cave as the movie progressed.
I can see the writers sitting around the table chatting up this idea of a film: "Okay, there was a time some people got trapped in a cave – I'm not sure when, but I think I read it somewhere. So, let's build on that."
"Hey, boss! I have an idea: let's just track down those survivors, if any, and after interviewing them, we'll really make this a true story!" said the intern.
"You're fired. The audience wants twists, turns, clichéd characters, corny dialogue, predictable finales, imminent danger every few minutes, characters that never, ever listen to the hero, and most of all a nemesis that wants to kill our hero! They want it predictable, familiar, easy to follow and something they've seen a hundred times before!"
"But
" pleaded the now unemployed intern, "
what if none of that happened? I mean, what if they just got stuck, food low, batteries dying and they just worked as a team to get out or even focus on the rescuers/heroes. Would there really be a need for an enemy?"
"Get out. We don't care if it's true. We're simply trying to profit off of someone else's tragedy. Is that so wrong?"
Sadly, I'm not off on that at all. But, what I'm most glad about, is the writers avoided throwing in the inevitable monster or alien in the mix to spruce it up a bit. It's only "INSPIRED" by a true story, so a lot of it can be (and was) fake.
Thee number one explorer in the galaxy, Frank (Richard Roxburgh) is trying to journey to the final frontier, but is having nasty problems with his son, Josh (Rhys Wakefield) whom he chose third over caves and Josh's mother. Poor Josh doesn't like exploring but does it to bond with his dad
Eh, the real story here is people get trapped in an enormous cave that's filling rapidly by both rainwater and hotheaded and inexperienced climbers and divers. They need to get from point A to B and here's where the writers come in nicely: they add every tension and melodramatic scene that could possibly happen. Perhaps this is like the so-called true accounts of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, whereas three plus stories came together to make theirs more interesting.
As always, I'm coming off too harsh. In reality, this is basically a harmless B-movie with a budget adventure and an absolute leave-your-brain-at-the-door feature. Once I learned this movie cannot possibly be taken seriously, I did relax a bit and had a little fun while allowing the suspense get to me and I even enjoyed all the beautiful cinematography. It was well shot, after all.
And then the "made-for-TV" climax hit
my jaw dropped and I would have further welcomed an alien to pop up out of nowhere to eat the remaining survivors.
It's recommended for those who have never seen a "Trapped-Survivors" movie or one based on somewhat-true events. And speaking of which, why can't they ever be honest? Even though it's quicker just to say: "Inspired by True Events" than
"The movie you're about to see comes from an idea we got from some newspaper and thought it would work as a motion picture. We know you like entertainment, so please excuse the deletion of factual data, real life people and any sense of plausibility. The characters, setting and events portrayed in this movie have been fabricated to make back our money. Oh, and we did it in 3-D to turn a profit. Enjoy and don't try this at home, or we'll sue you. Thank you."
The World According to Garp (1982)
The World's (Really) According to Jenny
Garp and I go waaay back. We have a history, part of which I will omit here for some honor, but most I'll explain.
Picture it: Summer of 1982, Arizona. I was 8 years old and my parents took me to see The World According to Garp with the rational that it's Robin Williams (he was Popeye for my sake) so it has to be funny, despite the dreaded R-Rating my parents were opposed to. Not only were they shocked at the nudity, sexual situations and language, they found the movie boring and not-so-funny.
What was funny, was that when they showed a woman's breasts, they covered my eyes yet leaving them wide open for the guy's locker room that, pretty much, showed everything. Heh, little did they know.
Probably not so strange, those were the main two scenes/memories I can recall from when I was eight and seeing this the first time. Obviously, the rest of the movie didn't leave too much of an impact, despite seeing myself in the role of Young Garp (James McCall) since we were relatively the same age. I guess I was either bored or concentrated too far on what I saw openly or through my parent's hand.
Beyond the "Rated-R Content" had they known what a deep, long and melodramatic film this was, I'm sure I would've been sent off to see either The Secret of Nimh or Tron. Heck, I would've loved to see Raiders of the Lost Ark's reissue as I don't recall seeing that in the theatres. My guess, they would've vetoed The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.
Anyhoo
fast forward. Present Day, also Arizona. I just watched it again, only for the second time, upon a friend's recommendation. My reaction?
Well, the locker room scene wasn't what I remembered it as
Just kidding. Overall, I believe the movie's title is wrong. Sure, the movie's main character is, in fact, Garp (Robin Williams,) but I got the feeling: this is really Nurse Jenny's (Glenn Close) movie. And Close did a FANTASTIC job as the strict, but free-spirited, WOMAN-FIRST single mother, something simply unheard of in the 1940s and on through Garp, her only child's life.
Sure, Jenny was a tad bit controlling and had wild ideas about how sex was bad, lust worse and men suck, but Close showed such incredible depth that I would loved to get to know her in real life. That is, if her men-hating groupies (today they would be militant-lesbians, and perhaps some of these were) would let me near her.
The character Garp does feel throughout that he's taking a backseat to his mother, and after watching the movie, I'd have to agree. If only he'd saw the whole picture, or at least opened his eyes and stop trying to one-up her, there might have been an alternative ending.
Basically, the movie follows baby Garp from birth (and in the air) through fatherhood in various stopping points of his life. His likes: wrestling and writing, his lusts: a childhood crush, a younger babysitter and a prostitute and his love: Helen. All throughout, his mother stays close as both his mother and friend.
That's the basic, BASIC, premise of the story, but you will need to watch it for the more depth given, the sly jokes the toned down Williams utters, and the friendships made such as the wonderful Roberta Muldoon played by John Lithgow.
(I generally hate this phrase, but
) I don't care who you are, you'll fall in love with Roberta, probably the only completely loyal and sane character in the entire movie. And yet will probably be judged the harshest – especially in 1982 – for being a transvestite ex-football player.
And speaking of which, that's one of the best qualities of this movie. Even though it was set from the 1940s to decades later, it still came out in 1982 and broached some touchy and tough subjects, both of which I thoroughly admire the filmmakers, writers, director, etc, for taking. This includes, but not inclusive of: woman's movements & rights, single mother parenting, transvestites – including acceptance and fights on both sides – SEE: Garp's final book. (I left out one in particular as that would be too much of a spoiler.)
This is not all to say this was a perfect movie. Though it did pull some emotions out of me, and certainly made me laugh in spots – namely from Williams very low humor, it had enormous pacing problems injunction with being just too long and it was thoroughly over-dramatic in spots to the point where almost each and every scene as the movie progressed, I felt something REALLY bad was going to happen. That got annoying after awhile due to it taking away some of the pleasures of watching and enjoying what was on the screen. In addition to that, some of the most traumatic scenes were cutaways, freeze-frames or preceded a long jump into the future where we were never really sure exactly what just happened or who died (or not) until someone verbally mentioned it. It was as if the filmmakers were brave enough to release some hot topics, but pulled back in fear on others.
I'm not sure how soon I'll be seeing this again – it's been nearly 30 years in between the first and second viewings, at any rate – because now I know how long it is, or feels. For, I don't have a problem with a 2 hour 16 minute movie; I just don't jump to the ones that feel twice that length.
If you have not yet experienced Jenny's World, er, Garp's, then I thoroughly encourage you to absorb the wonderful performances, lines, humor, sadness, growth and hope. Just know it's not a quick flick, but it's certainly one to be seen.
Hatchet II (2010)
Next, We Need a Jason Vs. Victor
As a life-long Jason Voorhees fan, I'm sad to say, his all-but Twin N the Swamps, Victor Crowley would win any battle between the two. Though, it may take an extra couple of million in the budget as Kane Hodder plays both of them.
Poor Adam Green. Why aren't people seeing his vision? Frozen thawed before it was barely seen and that was pretty good. The original Hatchet was a great homage to the Friday the 13th series (amongst others.) And now Hatchet II was booted out of theatres as fast as the Garbage Pail Kids were.
They say it's because the movie was too gross. Granted, some scenes were just over the top, and I think that's just part of the continued homage. I've seen worse, by the way. Saw III and Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, for two examples, were far worse. Hell, aside from one scene in the beginning, basically NOTHING happens, in regards to gore, for another 49 or so minutes. The movie's only 89 minutes long!
To add: despite the lack of action/gore/horror in the first two acts, director (also writer) Green kept things interesting enough to push forward, thanks to horror veteran Tony Todd, who always gives a scene-stealing performance. Not to mention the comedy during the time, such as the reference of Jason Voorhees (and LESLIE VERNON – do your homework on that one for those unfamiliar) to Victor Crowley.
Unfortunately, it also contains one of the WORST reasons for the heroine to go back into harm's way – usually the woods, in this case, the swamp with the most ruthless killer still on the loose. SPOILER! – Marybeth (originally played by Tamara Feldman, now by, I'm guessing wannabe scream-queen, Halloween veteran Danielle Harris) completely survived the attacks to near death more than a few times and lived to run to nearby New Orleans and tell about it.
Her first objective? Oh, to go back into the unstoppable/unkillable monster's domain and reclaim her brother and father's corpses in order to bury them. Seriously? Really? Granted, she'd love to extract revenge, but I would put my Vegas odds on the person/creature 4x her body weight. It's just as well; Harris aided in killing another franchise with yet another part two even with the same roman numerals in Rob Zombie's Halloween II.
OK, getting past that, we enter the realm of hillbilly revenge where the Reverend Zombie (Tony Todd, and yeah, I like that, Adam) rounds up bearded men (and the obvious blonde chick) with rounds of their own to head into the swamp with Lil Miss Marybeth to get Zombie's boat (lost in part one.) Does Zombie have ulterior motives? Obviously, but that's really not the point of the movie, is it?
And full circle: the main problem with the film is the enormous amount of set-up to get to the slaughter we're all expecting (and the reason theatres banned this.) If you're into that sort of thing, once the hillbillies hit the fan, you probably won't be disappointed. And it's severely over the top – including some, what, 6 foot chainsaw?
At least the pay off at the end was worth it, not to mention the whole experience is under an hour and a half. It's harmless – but, again, only if you're into the gore and splattered blood genre.